Here we are, my last blog for this course, but perhaps not my last ever. This course has taught me a lot of interesting and significant information regarding our digital environment. One issue that has had the biggest impact on me is our planets technological consumption, which has an even larger impact on the world. After watching the video of a man in Ghana walking through fields of trash explaining how it was once a beautiful river his friends and himself would play in, but now is a stream of hot sharp metal, I felt shameful. I will now be more conscious when disposing my old devices because I know the effect it has on innocent people’s lives, which I do not want to be a part of destroying, but rather saving. Also, the Pinterest assignment was very interesting because I found many DIY people could do to re use their e-waste or properly dispose of it, which is very beneficial to the environment.

Another issue that I found very interesting is planned obsolescence, which is one of the reasons for our world’s large consumption of electronical waste. After reading this issue I have told many people about it and I believe it is important to do, so they understand that companies purposely make products to break down in a certain amount of time even when they have the knowledge to make them last longer. The idea of planned obsolescence makes sense when you see new generations of IPhones coming out every six months with very little changes made. I never really ran out to buy the latest gadgets once they came out because my old ones were working just fine, but after reading about this issue I am now going to be more aware of companies intentions when shopping.

The last issue that I will take from this course is the idea of limitations of privacy online. Before this course I was well aware that whatever I posted on the Internet would always be able to be tracked down whether or not I deleted the content. We learned that on social media platforms such as Facebook, there are normally steps you have to go through before deleting your account and once it is deleted the content you have posted tend to still be on the Internet. This is because friends and family can either add pictures of you on their accounts or previous post you have made before still stay on Facebook. However, after this week’s lecture and previous lectures regarding privacy policies I have become more aware of how important online privacy actually is. I am now very conscious and careful with what I post on the Internet because content can easily be seen by the wrong people such as, future employers or family members.

In light of the readings this week digital inequalities are a real concern. Around the time the Internet was developing, it was believed that technology could end social divisions, but this is far from the truth because technology neither creates or solves cultural problems (Boyd, p. 156). First, there is the concern of the ‘digital divide, which is the difference between who has access to the Internet, social media, and social networks. Companies often design, implement, and test new technologies in limited settings, which results in biases and negatively affects certain people. For example, many image-capture technologies have had difficulties capturing darker skinned individuals because they rely on light, which reflects better off lighter objects (Boyd, p. 158). Also, Siri is better at recognizing American English accents most commonly represented at Apple. Once these products are ready to be sold and put one the shelves people began to notice the biases.

The Internet was supposed to be different from previous technologies with the attempt of becoming an equalizer, but instead the Internet sheds new light on the divisive social dynamics that plague contemporary society. The same biases and racism that occur in our everyday life also affect experiences people have on the Internet because everyone brings their knowledge, experiences, and values from the offline world into the online world. Boyd claims teenagers bring their friends and identities with them online while reinforcing existing connections people already have. In various online communities such as YouTube, Twitter, and even games like World of War craft, racism and hate speech are common (Boyd, p. 162). One of the main concerns is that people bring their attitude towards others with them, and their desire to position themselves in relation to others (Boyd, p. 160). For example, Alexandra Wallace was annoyed with what she perceived to be a lack of manners among Asian and Asian Americans at her school, so she decided to post a racist YouTube video mocking students of Asian descent at UCLA in 2011 (Boyd, p. 162). With this, Alexandra is using social media to spread her hate for Asian and Asian Americans in hope of having the same respond from other users, but in fact she received a lot of hate mail and threats. Social media makes it easy for people to express insensitive and hateful views, also, publicly shame and sometimes threats; these tools are creating easier ways of communication.

Boyd explains how even in schools where teens pride themselves on being open-minded often ignorantly continue producing racial divisions. For example, when asked about racial division in more privileged schools Boyd regularly heard that race did not matter in friend groups, but once they logged onto Facebook it was evident that the school was segregated between races (Boyd, p. 164). In a diverse school he noticed students were divided by race, but when teens were asked to explain they claimed the division was due to sports or classes, not realizing that segregation played a role in those aspects of school life, as well (Boyd, p. 164). Social norms and existing networks outside of the Internet, such as sport teams, are continued online. Boyd also asked a student if he could visit her Facebook page, he noticed she was friends with nearly everyone from her school, but once he looked at photos he realized most of the commenters were of the same race. Overall, social inequalities are just as much as a concern online as they are offline because people bring their outside lives with them onto the Internet, which reinforces cultural division.

When thinking about both Hargittai’s and Boyd’s findings, I believe there are ways in which online classes can reinforce inequalities. However, with my experience in an online course, online classes are a lot more individual than those that take place in a regular classroom setting. In an in class classroom students are able to see their peers, which means they can judge them based on their appearances and personalities. Whereas, on an online class we are only able to see other students names and styles of writing, which makes it harder to make assumptions. I think some students do make assumptions based on other students names and writing style, but I believe it occurs a lot less then it does on social media networks. Since online courses make it harder to judge our peers there is more room for challenging inequalities.

Digital tools and platforms are very useful when thinking critically about our digital environment, especially YouTube. Users are able to use digital tools to critique our digital environment, in which they tend to focus on a wide range of popular values and issues, including gender, race, sexuality, and political topics of the government (Zeffiro, Week 6). In McIntosh’s article, “A History of Subversive Remix Video Before YouTube: Thirty Political Video Mashups Made Between World War II and 2005′, the author has displayed a collection of 30 videos, which demonstrate critical thinking of the digital environment by using the digital environment. For example, McIntosh uses the video, Cinderella +++ by Eileen Maxson, in which she combines Disney characters and audio clips from 90210 and Dawson’s Creek to demonstrate the stereotypical gender-based fantasies presented in fairy tales (McIntosh, 2012). Also, McIntosh uses The Street Muppets N.W.A (1994), which was a VCR-made remix that combined footage from Sesame Street with the rap song “Fuck the Police” by N.W.A., with a main purpose of highlighting police brutality against black urban youth in the United States (McIntosh, 2012). Both of these videos are examples of users remaking large cultural texts to challenge political, media, and social power structures. These mash-ups are used to overthrow the dominant meaning of the original videos with the use of sarcasm and humor.

This is an excellent form of participation because, as we discussed during the week concerning memes, when users interact with content rather then passively view and share it they are creating something new, which allows communities to develop and discuss something more critical. YouTube is an excellent digital tool to use when critiquing, but so are images (memes). Today, users now have the ability to generate their own content and share it across the web. In most cases, as soon as an event becomes popular many users will begin creating their own content with subversive meanings. Indeed, mash up videos, spoofs, and memes have become very popular among users on the various social media websites. For example, a group of feminist created a remake of the music video, Blurred Lines, which made fun of Robin Thicke’s ignorance towards women and defended women rights. This is an example of users criticizes our digital environment and cultural stereotypes with the use of our digital environment. Another great example of users using digital tools to criticize our digital environment is the website, Wikepediocracy, which is a site designed for users to critique Wikipedia’s purpose and included information. It is important for users to have the opportunity to critically evaluate our digital environment in the most efficient way, which is with our digital tools.

Thus, this type of participation has created a new generation of users and communities who use digital tools to critique our digital environment, whether it is with YouTube, Memes, or websites. With the ability to critique our digital environment with digital tools individuals have the ability to critically evaluate our digital culture and use our digital tools to share their views, whether they are agreeing, opposing, or simply making fun. This is an excellent use of our digital tools because it allows users to be active participants rather then passively view content that is already on the web.

To support my point above, I have created my own collection of six YouTube videos, which demonstrate the idea of how users can use digital tools and platforms to critique our digital environment. Above, I argued users who create spoofs or re work original content tend to focus on critiquing dominant values or issues in popular culture today, which includes race, sexuality, gender, and political topics of the government (Zeffiro, Week 6). Users who create spoofs generally include sarcasm and humor in their videos with the intent of entertaining their audience as well as getting their point across. It is important that users have the chance to effectively speak their mind rather then passively listen or read content they disagree with.

Blurred Lines (Feminist Parody) “Defined Lines”

For example, this video is a parody of the 2013 hit song, Blurred Lines, by Robin Thicke and Pharell Williams. The original music video includes subliminal messages that degrade women, while Thicke and Williams sing about a woman in a nightclub who may or may not be interested in him. The music video also includes half naked women strutting around; some say it stimulates an attitude towards sex and consent. This parody was created by a group of feminist who are defending women’s rights by creating a humorous, but still serious, re make of the original version. It is funny because the lyrics still follow the same beat of the original and the music video is very similar, but with different actors and lyrics. Also, the women make fun of men by showing them how we feel by reversing the roles of the common stereotypes about women. However, the re-make is very powerful message created by a clever group of women who have critically examined cultural values that are used in our digital environment. They used the digital tool, YouTube, to create a video that shares their oppositional view of, Blurred Lines, which was a very popular hit in our digital environment.

James Franco and Seth Rogan- Bound 3

Above, is a spoof of Kanye West and Kim Kardashian’s music video, Bound 2. Actors, James Franco and Seth Rogan mock Kanye and Kim’s music video by creating their own video called, Bound 3. They use the same beat, lyrics, and music video, but replace Kanye and Kim with themselves. This spoof is hilarious because the original is supposed to be about Kanye and Kim’s love and intimacy as the video is very sexual, but James and Seth accurately imitate the couple’s ridiculous music video. Not only did James and Seth think this music video was ridiculous, but so did majority of the world. With that, they used digital tools to simply make fun of our current digital environment and ‘talented’ musicians we have today.

The Voice “Sesame Street” spoof

Some of you may follow the American reality singing competition broadcast, The Voice, which includes the strongest singers across the Country with the help of celebrity musicians. However, above is a link of a spoof, in which the user has created their very own clip of The Voice, but with help from the Sesame Street cast. The main purpose of this spoof is to criticize the Television show itself; this user is critiquing our current pop culture’s idea of professional musicians. The user uses YouTube to create a video with sesame street characters that impersonate the judges and competitors on The Voice. This video can be seen as funny only by a selected few because the user is implying that the judges are untalented and ‘stupid’. As we mentioned before, some content is steered towards a certain audience and in this case this video is making fun of The Voice, so fans of the show may be offended or disagree. Indeed, this is a way users can criticize our digital environment by creating funny content to share with fellow ‘haters’ of the show, The Voice.

Whose Line is it Anyways- Blink 182 Spoof

The video above is a clip from the television show, whose line is it anyways, which is a comedy show that includes four performers who create characters, scenes, and songs on the spot. The link above includes a clip of performers Wayne Brady and Richard Simmons imitating Blink 182’s song, All The Small Things. Unlike most of the videos in my collection that use YouTube to critique our digital environment, this one is a game show on TV. The content is supposed to be humorous as it uses a TV show to critiques our digital environment. Although, some episodes may not be criticizing our digital environment, majority of them are, including the one provided. It is funny because again, they use the same beat and tune to the original song, but impersonate the band members with their own lyrics. In this video the performers are not in disagreement with the song, but rather critiquing it by simply making a joke of the genre. As a fan myself, I would not be offended by this spoof, but rather get a little laugh out of it because I know they are a talented band, but some believe they are very dark or deep, which is what Wayne and Richard are trying to get at.

First World Problems Rap and Third World People Reply

Above, I have included two links to two different videos that critique the popular hash tag First World Problems. I believe this is very important because #firstworldproblems has been a trending hash tag for quite a while now, it may not be as popular as it was before, but users still use it. The hash tag follows a tweet that tends to be a complaint about something ridiculous such as, “I hate when my phone dies #firstworldproblems”. The first video is a video that was created by a young male who raps about the various complaints, which would be considered first world problems by many Twitter users. This video uses a digital tool, YouTube, to critique a popular hash tag used on one of our social media platforms. The first video can be seen as humorous because it demonstrates how many ridiculous complaints individuals have described as first world problems. However, the second link provided is a little more serious rather then humorous because it includes third world people using first world problems. It was important to include this because it demonstrates how ignorant users look when using first world problems, while people in other countries are experiencing real life or death problems. Again, people have used our digital environment, YouTube, to get their point across.

Will The Real Mitt Romney Please Stand Up (ft. Eminem) by Hugh Atkin

Finally, this last link is a YouTube video that re works content by continuously using different narratives. This video was created to imitate Republican Mitt Romney by mashing various interviews and speeches that line up with Eminem’s song, The Real Slim Shady. This video uses the digital tool, YouTube, to critique politicians, but with the intent to be funny rather then insulting. It is very funny because it matches up smoothly with the song, The Real Slim Shady, and uses random phrases from different events to create a song by Mitt Romney during that election period.

Wikipedia has caused an ongoing debate between its users, in which two groups have been formed: the inclusionists and exclusionists. Carr explains this debate is just as serious as the abortion debate, the death penalty debate, and the gun control debate (Carr, p. 197). Inclusionists believe there should be no constraints on the breedth of the encyclopedia (Carr, p, 198), in which any article submitted should be used. The opposing group, the exclusionists, believes Wikipedia should be treated as a serious encyclopedia where small or inappropriate articles are to be deleted. With 207 inclusionists and 144 exclusionists, the inclusionists group is winning with the most support (Carr, pg. 198)

In my opinion I couldn’t agree more with the inclusionists group as they have a better argument in this age of digital culture. Today, we have access to the Internet at the tip of our fingers, which provides us with an enormous amount of information. Wikipedia is a very useful website that generally provides users with answers for any topic; since it has no constraints on size there should be no limits on what is posted. If there is a place for an article on almost any topic on Wikipedia then there is no reason to set limits and delete articles. The people in control should focus more on making the entries better quality instead of picking which entries to delete (Carr, p. 197). If Wikipedia has no limit for space then holding information on almost any topic is a very useful tool because it would prevent users from having to search other sites. Also, if users are able to find information regarding a certain topic elsewhere then why can’t Wikipedia include it? If it is on other websites then it is important enough to be on Wikipedia.

I understand that the exclusionists want Wikipedia to be more like a serious encyclopedia, which includes deleting ‘less’ important articles, but if this were to happen we would be ignoring specific information that the people in control find inappropriate. Wikipedia is a way to collect knowledge on any subject and the more articles included the better chance users have finding information regarding whatever topic they want. Today, it is important to include everyone’s knowledge and views because there are so many cultures and specific subjects that not everyone is trained in, which is why the inclusionists approach is more appropriate. Also, if using the inclusionist’s method, there would be less bias opinions on Wikipedia because everyone has the opportunity to include information, instead of only ‘credible’ individuals who only support more important ideologies.

The biggest concern with submitting articles on Wikipedia is whether or not they are reliable, which is why when using an inclusionists approach every article still has to be factual and credible. During my high school years and in University most teachers recommended avoiding using Wikipedia as a reference, but this is because Wikipedia is believed to be a place where anyone can edit anything. Carr explains this idea of Wikipedia is a myth as Wikipedia does have restrictions implemented in order to keep Wikipedia accurate.

Overall, using the inclusionists approach means giving all topics importance and worthiness. In contrast, the exclusionists model ignores the idea of Wikipedia’s openness, but rather claims only appropriate articles should be included on the site and others shall be deleted. With today’s rapid changes and easy access to the Internet no information should be excluded from the web unless there is solid reasoning.

In this article, ” Why I left Facebook: Stubbornly Refusing to Not Exist Even After Opting Out of Mark Zuckerberg’s Social Graph, Robert Ghel critiques Facebook’s privacy and freedom issues using examples of case studies from bloggers who have quit using Facebook. First, Ghel discusses a Facebook event that occurred in 2009, in which Facebook updated their Terms of Service, which claimed ownership over their users data, even if a user left the network. This change caused outrage and users created a group called, ‘Millions Against Facebook’s New Terms Service and Layout’, which lead to Facebook allowing users to vote for the new Terms of Service, or to keep the old ones. In the end Facebook ended up winning and the new Terms of Service were kept in place. At this time I was unaware of the updated Terms of Service, but once I read this article it was my first time becoming aware. I think that most of my Facebook friends also were unaware of the change and vote, which is certainly a problem because the lack of knowledge spread by this “democratic” network. If I was aware of the issue I would absolutely have voted against the new Terms of Service because I do not want Facebook owning all my personal content such as, photos, comments, or status’s I have posted. I am aware that Facebook is not as private as it is made out to be, which is why I am careful of what I share on the site, but having any of your content, even just a photo, being owned by a mass business is not comforting. Facebook has given users the idea that their posts are private because they give us the option to only have our Facebook friends see our content, and we have the choice to block certain users. However, since Facebook owns all our content they can store and share it anywhere, whether or not our privacy settings state otherwise.

Second, Ghel explains how leaving Facebook is merely impossible due to a few reasons. He discusses the process of leaving, in which Facebook provides a tutorial on deleting your account including questions such as, ‘Are you sure you want to deactivate your account?” and ‘Your 312 friends will no longer be able to keep in touch with you’ (Ghel, p. 226). When you chose to delete your account Facebook will then deactivate your account for two weeks, which gives you the chance to re-think your decision; if you chose to continue the deletion the process includes various helps screens. Next, Ghel mentions that leaving Facebook is like, ‘slipping away alone from a massive party before it ends’ (Ghel, p. 221). He believes that there is a mass amount of pressure when deciding to leave Facebook because your friends and families will continue to use it and as more and more people join more sites adopt Facebook connect as their login making Facebook a necessity to use many online services (Ghel, p.225). Also, Ghel claims that just because you delete your account not all your information has been deleted, since friends and family may have posted pictures of you, or previous comments have remained.

As a participant of Facebook, I agree with Ghel’s argument that leaving Facebook can be lonely. As I would have trouble deleting my account knowing I am unable to see what my peers are doing and also that my information is still owned by Facebook with the capability of being shared anywhere they wanted.

Today, technology is a fast growing industry with no signs of slowing down, in fact eventually everything will be ran by technology. When I was younger I was always playing outside with the rest of the kids in my neighbourhood, unlike today where kids are inside playing video games, sitting on the computer, or watching TV. We also knocked on each others doors to see what our friends were doing where as now I generally text or phone them. As I got older, things began to change, the Internet became more popular and cell phones became a necessity. Today we are surrounded by technology making it very hard to avoid ever using it. Every day I use my cell phone, which serves multiple purposes such as, texting, face-timing, music, checking my various social network sites, and checking the weather. I also use my cellphone as a camera, even though I have a real camera at home that I have not touched in a few years because this way I only have to carry one gadget that I have on me at all times. Since I work full time throughout the week I am not on my laptop nearly as much as I was during the school year, but around 8 I will stream my shows or use Netflix until I fall asleep. I also use my computer to go on Facebook, but I normally only go on Twitter and Instagram with my phone.

I got my first cell phone when I began grade nine and the only reason I got one was because my aunt worked at Bell. She got me a free Motorola Razor, which was ‘trending’ at that time. Eventually that cell phone broke and I went through a few more during high school, but they were never smart phones. I never really had a fancy phone because I was always loosing or breaking them, until first year of university when my mom bought me my first blackberry. I had my blackberry for almost a year until it broke, which I then went out and bought my first I Phone. I signed up on a two year contract with the I Phone 4, which I still currently have with one year left in the contract. I decided to get the I phone 4 because it was free with the contract and the contract was very cheap. I could have got the I phone 5, which is the newest generation, but it was a lot more money, so I decided to settle for the 4. As far as it goes for laptops, I bought my first PC laptop in grade eleven, which I had for a long time. Eventually during my second year of university my laptop screen was beginning to fall off and it was very slow, so my parents decided it was time I got a new laptop. My dad surprised me with a new Macbook Pro, which I have had for a year now. I LOVE my Macbook Pro! When newer generations of I Phones or laptops get released I am never that eager to change my devices right away, mainly because of financial reasons, but also because my devices are still currently working. Although, I do wish I had the newest I Phone with a better plan because of their quality and my lack of data I have right now.

When it comes to disposing old electronic devices I am not the greatest because I had lost most of my cellphones or still have them, along with my old laptop, lying around my house. I also still have my I Pod touch that I sometimes use because I have a lot of music on it from before I had my I Phone. I do know that Bell has a recycle box you can drop off old cell phones, in which they properly dispose of them. Also, after working for the town this summer I found out they host a Hazardous Waste Day, in which people in town can bring household hazardous materials to our shop and we will properly dispose of them.

Check out my Pinterest board regarding E-Waste:

E-waste (electronic waste) is unwanted or broken electronic gadgets that have reached the end of their usefulness. This board can help inspire you to reuse your e-waste to help protect our environment rather than throw it in the trash.

This week I will be discussing whether or not hashtag activism is highly effective or simply lazy. First, hashtag activism is defined as: an act of fighting for or supporting a cause that people are advocating through social media such as, Facebook, Twitter, and any other networking platforms (Techopedia). This type of activism does not require individuals to do anything more then share or ‘like’ post or retweet tweets. I myself believe this form of activism is very effective, while others feel it is unhelpful and just a way to feel as though you are helping with the issue. In Brun’s (2014) film he uses the term macro groups to explain large groups that are brought together by hashtags, in which anyone who searches a hashtag can see the tweet whether or not they are following the individual. Once these hashtag have spread around a large group of people it is now like a massive public conversation bringing people together to speak about an issue. This is a highly effective way to spread awareness and make your voice count as a society.

Although, the definition of hashtag activism claims that individuals do not intend to do anything more about the issue, it does not mean that this form of activism is useless. Once a hashtag has been used by various users the hashtag becomes ‘trending’, which means it is popular and gone viral. On the side of each users twitter feed ‘trending’ hashtags are listed, which makes it easier for the hashtag to be recognized. Here are some examples proving hashtag activism is effective:

In April more than 300 girls were kidnapped from their school dormitory in Nigeria and the next day a group of African American women on Twitter wondered what the coverage would look like if this happened to hundreds of white girls (Olin, 2014). After a week, the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls was started in Nigeria by parents and activist who did not believe their president when he claimed he was taking action, so they began to raise awareness in attempt to pressure the government into doing more (Olin, 2014). The hashtag had worked, it went from 10,000 mentions a day to 100,000 or 200,000 a day. (Olin, 2014). Some may say it is only a hashtag and will not deliver the girls back to their parents, but it is a start and the world is now talking about 276 stolen girls rather then being unaware of the issue. Even President Barack Obama’s wife posted a tweet! Without hashtag activism this case would not have been recognized by anyone, but only those who caught the 6 o’clock news.

A similar example is the two hashtags that were created after the May 23rd stabbing and shooting rampage near the University of California, Santa Barbara. The hashtag #YesAllWomen spread across twitter in attempt to raise awareness about harassment and violence against women, which I also saw on Facebook. The second hashtag was #NotOneMore, which was created to spread awareness about gun violence. Thousands of people shared both hashtags voicing their opinions with regards to women harassment and gun violence, which were two issues relating to this tragedy (Rosman, 2014).

So, is hashtag activism useful? Yes, it absolutely is, it is highly effective as it rapidly spreads to promote change, which can happen if thousands of people across the world are involved. Murthy (2012) calls this a publicly driven culture. As Murthy (2012) claims, Twitter, like any new communication technology shapes our world because we are capable of sharing our lives publicly. Twitter allows users to quickly share information and opinions to each other, whether you are followers or not, which occurs through hashtags. Also, tweets can contain hyperlinks to full-length newspaper articles or videos allowing users to share more then 140 characters. There may be some constraints to this form of activism such as, some people may not have equal access to the internet, in which they are not aware of the issue or others may only tweet to ‘fit in’ rather then understand the issue. Over all, enough people have access to twitter and regardless if people have actually done their research it is more important that the issue gains awareness. Therefore, hashtag activism does have real world consequences because as you have seen, a story and a cause in four words can easily go viral and has the capability to promote change. With a simple tweet people can get the world talking.